Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 22, 2019 - Louder with Crowder

01:03:49

PROOF: YOUTUBE CENSORED TULSI GABBARD | Louder with Crowder

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	DOMESTIC TRANSLATION EPISODE A Good morning, and welcome to Domestic Translation. I'm your
	host, Dominic. And today, we are going to be talking about the word, the word, the word, the
	word, the word, the word, the word, the word, the word, the word, the word, the word, the
	word, the word, the word, the important win!
	Right now.
	University of Sri Lanka UK Figuring out where to hit parts
	descube more the answer is
	number 4 okay, room for proposal
	number 3 only I because that I want it
	I'll be there when I say it's done we are the dreamers of dreams
	you you
	you Bye!
	Perhaps the moon knows the secret of the new sound.
	Open your mind.
	Let us begin our quest to find a new sound.
	Do-do, I've got new.
	Nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got price.
	Look at those eyes.
	Everything I need.
	Do-do, I've got new.
	Nicey, nicey, do-do.
	Okay, let's have fun.
	Nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got new.
	Do-do, nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got new.
	Look at those eyes.
	Have fun, have fun.
	Nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got new.
	Do-do, nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got new.
	Look at those eyes.
	He's so bright and bright.
	Pull on this hand.
	He's so bright and he won't get out of place.
	He's so bright and bright.
	Pull on this hand.
	Pull on this.
	He's so bright and he won't get out of place.
	He won't get out of place.
	Better, better.
	Nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got new.
	Do-do, nicey, nicey, do-do.
	I've got new.
	Look at those eyes.
	My name is Mr. Susan.
	You must choose.
	And now it is time for you to do the choosing.
	Icy, icy Zoom I've got new
	Town Oh, you must choose
	School is here Bimbo, bimbo
	My name is Mr. Susan You must choose
	And now it is time for you To do the choosin'
	I am Mr. Keen Zoom, Zoom
	And I've got new Other
	You must choose If you're in Zoom, Zoom
	I've got fine soul Can I get out?
	Will I get out?
	Dooz Dooz, I've got you And a big fat cat
	You must choose before Dooz Dooz, I've got rice
	Look at them shine Trapped in cabinets, trapped in cabinets
	Can I get out? Will I get out?
	Cosy will You're like a jingle bong, rinse rinse again
	Dooz Dooz, I've got you You're ready
	Dooz Dooz, I've got you You're ready
	Dooz Dooz, I've got you Dooz Dooz, I've got you
	and it's not what we're trying to do.
	So if you're in a relationship, you may want to stop at that point.
	So it's a matter of whether you feel like you're that, but you're not trying to do that.
	If you're in a relationship, you want to stop at that point.
	If you're in a relationship, you want to stop at that point.
	But if you're not in a relationship, you want to stop at that point.
	If you're in a relationship, you want to stop at that point.
	If you're in a relationship, you want to stop at that point.
	But if you're not in a relationship, you want to stop at that point.
	So it's a matter of whether you feel like you're that, but you're not trying to do that.
	So it's a matter of whether you feel like you're that, but you're not trying to do that.
	Directed.
	Music.
	Yes, it's Shakespeare, but I can say that I love you more and more every day.
	Even if we're on separate paths, my heart is forever yours, I hope you still live Tada
	today and I sing I love you Like No Clean بت 수고했네 I love you like No Clean
	This is my, my, my, my, this is my, my, my, my, this is my All right, I'm sorry, we're live.
	I'm not hearing you there, Quarterback Garrett.
	Two, three, four, there we go.
	Are we good to go?
	Audio wait, are we good?
	We didn't hear you.
	Half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond, is his mic live as well?
	It is.
	Okay, good.
	All right.
	Listen, this is something that's a little bit more impromptu, so we are live, I can confirm that.
	I can say that and I'm not lying.
	Yep.
	Biggest story we ever released, and I start it with a lie.
	We're live.
	No, wait, what?
	Okay.
	So, we're live.
	I'll say that for the last time.
	Before I dive into anything here, and because I genuinely worry that this stream and content could be taken down, I ask that everyone watching right now please tweet, Facebook, Instagram, post this wherever you can.
	Include the hashtags YouTube 2020 Election Blacklist and Crowder Exposes YouTube.
	I know that's self-serving but we want to make sure that people know where to go to find this stream.
	We are live streaming to the Blaze TV right now in case the feed gets cut and I want you to know that I expressly give permission for anyone out there to screen record and pirate this stream in the event that it's banned and this content removed.
	So, it's going to take a little bit to sort of unpack, but let me state on the outset that I and the team here at Lottery with Crowder have uncovered what I believe to be undeniable proof of Google and YouTube's current meddling in the United States presidential election.
	Directly.
	I want to be clear so there can be no misrepresentation regarding the information I'm going to present.
	Again, please tweet, Facebook, get this trending.
	What I'm about to show you is, what I'm about to discuss, it's not a left or right issue, we've heard that so much it's become a cliche, but it really does affect anyone who believes in fair and honest elections, okay?
	Let me work backwards, understanding that I am going to get to photographic and videographic what I believe to be Irrefutable evidence of altering the fundamental landscape of the election.
	Let me start backwards.
	Many of you remember the Vox Adpocalypse, okay?
	That was a time in which this program was a target of a selectively edited smear campaign from the company Vox, and it should be noted in which the parent company, NBCUniversal, Comcast, they have at least a 34% ownership stake.
	The event actually, the controversy, went all the way up to the top of YouTube with Susan Wojcicki herself even commenting on the story publicly.
	Was it the Recode Conference?
	Yes.
	Something like that?
	It should be noted publicly stating that we had not violated any guidelines.
	So while we were found to be in no violation of YouTube official policies or guidelines, in order to appease the leftist torch mob, we were completely demonetized on this channel, meaning that we would no longer be able to sustain a living on the platform.
	Now, it should be noted that behind the scenes during the Vox Apocalypse, my half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman, who will be here in a second to speak about this more with me, him and I received a phone call from YouTube representatives.
	who refused to give their name or any additional information outside of a pre-written statement.
	We were told that they had extensively reviewed our channel in full, and that the violations with the channel, or the, I guess, not necessarily violations, but what it was that we had done which warranted demonetization, let's go, there's no official term for it, that the detailed follow-up would be sent in an email so that we could attempt to rectify the situation and remonetize ourselves.
	This is all we ever received.
	We have the email up right here.
	So despite multiple follow-ups asking for the promised details, YouTube went to complete radio silence.
	Again, I'm explaining this so you understand the backstory when we get to the evidence that doesn't involve me at all directly.
	YouTube went to complete radio silence.
	We even removed over 50 videos that are now available exclusively for Mug Club members at The Blaze.
	Even though they didn't list 50 videos that could potentially be a violation.
	We took our shirt out of the merch store to be on the safe side.
	We continued to reach out, by the way, all the while to YouTube to complete radio silence.
	And this is not a sob story.
	Your support and joining MugClub was so overwhelming, we more than made up for the losses and demonetization very quickly.
	So I really appreciate it was support that we needed then and we would absolutely welcome now for those who haven't joined.
	Consider it, especially given the information I'm about to reveal.
	There's no promo code or anything like that.
	You just search Mug Club and we would appreciate you joining.
	Here's the thing.
	Demonetization is never what really bothered me.
	So let's get closer to the issue that we're about to discuss here.
	It was a canary in a coal mine, if you will.
	I've openly said many times I would gladly take demonetization for the rest of this program's lifespan if it guaranteed that the organic reach and the search algorithms were corrected and they were transparent.
	Because, and this is central to what I'm about to release here, while money in politics is important and it's an issue, more impactful and more valuable, I would argue, in 2019 is information.
	I would argue that we've reached a point where big money in politics doesn't wield nearly as much influence as the mechanisms of information or informational delivery in 2019.
	It's how Donald Trump was elected despite being opposed by many huge Republican donors.
	And it's how many fake stories run by traditional media have been exposed.
	At the same time that demonetization was occurring with us, all of a sudden our organic reach and traffic on YouTube was decreasing.
	Specifically, more specifically, the gaining of new subscribers on a daily basis.
	Everyone here, we did a complete overhaul.
	We would dig into our analytics.
	We tried to see what was happening.
	The odd thing was that on an individual video per video basis, Our views were better than ever.
	So was our retention.
	So was the amount of time viewed.
	So are the overall interactions on videos.
	All the most valued metrics for video algorithms, according to YouTube's own statements.
	What we noticed was a drastically reduced reach in search and organic traffic, despite having really created the kind of content that we always had and the kind of content that YouTube said they always wanted.
	I don't know if you guys can hear, I'm a little parched.
	Going up against the biggest company in the history of ever makes me a little nervous.
	I don't really get starstruck, but this one has me sweating.
	Not quite sweating blood like Jesus and Gethsemane, but, you know, Gethsemane?
	Is that what we were talking about yesterday?
	Alright, okay, listen.
	I just deal with discomfort through jokes, and they're usually worse than other jokes.
	I give you this backstory.
	So you understand how it is, really, that a late-night host in a comic was able to stumble across some information that will be shared in this broadcast.
	It is only because of all this tomfoolery, if you want to call it that, if I may, on YouTube, that we had begun digging into the potential reasons for it, and we were watching everything like a hawk.
	We were continually running effectively comparative studies, analytics, testing for controls on a daily basis behind the scenes because of all that transpired.
	So I want to note, it's at this time where we discovered some very odd, I guess some peculiarities we can say, in simply trying to find one of my own change my mind videos, an employee here Realizing that it was likely faster than combing through the archives himself, our own video channel, because it's not necessarily the most robust platform for that on YouTube.
	He just ran a YouTube search, Steven Crowder changed my mind.
	And nothing showed up.
	Which we thought was odd.
	And so we ran some other similar searches.
	Again, nothing.
	Now when I announced this publicly, we received responses from you, numbering in the high five, potentially six figures.
	Many viewers were receiving the exact same results.
	Many of you.
	But a lot of you accused us of lying or doctoring photos because our content was showing up as normal in your search results, which didn't make a lot of sense to us.
	Noticing a trend, then, on a hunch, my wonderful, brilliant, and terrifying researcher, Reg, he ran some controlled experiments, if I may, using different VPNs.
	And that's when the puzzle pieces started coming together.
	The blacklisting of this channel and its content on search was occurring in the United States exclusively.
	Let me explain what that means.
	That means that if someone searched Steven Crowder Changed My Mind in Argentina or any other country, the appropriate content showed up.
	If someone typed the exact same search in the United States, nothing.
	Now we found, or we were sent proof of this, many of these examples from countries all across the world.
	And it was concerning for several reasons.
	Not only because it provided a direct answer as to why the organic reach had plummeted, but more importantly, this is the number one conservative-leaning channel of all time on YouTube.
	One with a vast majority of our fans being in the United States.
	And one that has hosted not just a few, but many national presidential candidates as well as political figureheads.
	This week, I think we have Rand Paul on the show.
	So why would YouTube do this?
	How could it be an algorithm?
	And this is going to get to more of the direct evidence of the current election, but I want you to follow the story here.
	This is why we are in a unique position to uncover this.
	Didn't intend for it to happen.
	We just wanted to find out what was screwy about our channel.
	So how could it be an algorithm?
	And if they were doing this, by the way, to the largest, we were thinking the largest conservative presence on the platform, YouTube, despite in their own words having found, they found no violations of policies on our part, what could this mean for the political landscape of America?
	More specifically, the 2020 elections, okay?
	I expressed these concerns in a cell phone video, a flippant cell phone video.
	Making sure to communicate that at the time, I didn't have any evidence available to me of this occurring to anyone else, but I encouraged everyone out there to send in your own test results.
	And I also expressed my concern in potential election engineering.
	So this is several months removed from the Vox Adpocalypse, a cell phone video.
	After this, for the first time since the Vox Adpocalypse, I was immediately contacted by YouTube.
	And this time, not by faceless, nameless people reading a statement, but representatives in positions of power who were looking to try and ameliorate the situation.
	Of course I found it odd.
	Why reach out to us now?
	Why did everyone refuse to talk to us when we were at the center of this national scandal that the CEO of your company had to address publicly?
	When our livelihoods were on the line, why did we receive complete radio silence?
	And now because of a throwaway cell phone video?
	Direct contacts to the higher-ups and assistants with our channel?
	Seemed really odd, but wanting to act in good faith, we opened communications while we were still conducting more research experiments behind the scenes.
	And yet the excuse that we often hear, and that you'll often hear from YouTube, is that all of these results are based on algorithms.
	That's kind of been the crux of this.
	These algorithms are designed really to best serve the most relevant content to viewing audiences.
	That's the constant defense.
	Obviously that didn't add up in our case, when people couldn't find our content exclusively in the United States.
	So after the initial call, The contacts at YouTube were kind enough to switch the status of our channel to show the, I believe it's called the Prominent User Interface, if I'm not mistaken.
	And that includes a channel card, which identifies our channel, and a link to the subscribe at the top, along with our videos and suggested links column.
	And we were notified that not everyone had gotten this, including some other prominent channels.
	This is important!
	Because it proved two things.
	One, for the first time, someone at YouTube was actually paying attention, and more importantly, two, that ultimately there was a person, or is a person, at YouTube who can make these kinds of calls, or at the very least can correct and guide them, as was the case with our channel.
	Finally, this brings us to some evidence that we just stumbled upon as it relates to the current DNC primary election.
	So many of you have probably guessed where this is going.
	A lot of you may not.
	But let me start this with Tulsi Gabbard already has a pending lawsuit with Google slash YouTube Alphabet for what she perceives as unfair treatment.
	Now I want to let Tulsi Gabbard explain the case in her own words first.
	I know that you had some problems that you are contesting.
	Google did not treat you fairly after the last debate.
	Tell us about that.
	Look, in the first debate, I was on the first night and I was the most searched candidate of that event.
	Unfortunately, Google chose to arbitrarily block our Google Ads account for several hours at the time that was most critical for our campaign.
	I'm suing Google for taking that action.
	They've provided no valid explanation for why that was done.
	There was no wrongdoing or problem on our part, not because of me, but because of this
	monopoly, this power that these big tech monopolies have to simply shut out people arbitrarily.
	This is a threat to our freedom of speech.
	And it's an important thing for us all to stand united in calling out and to protect,
	because whether you're a Democrat or Republican or on the left or on the right, for a big
	tech monopoly to have this power, this affects all of us.
	Okay.
	And let me be clear, I don't really agree with Tulsi Gabbard on a whole lot.
	I wouldn't vote for her if she were the candidate for president.
	But I can still tell right from wrong.
	Her lawsuit, let me be clear about this in case you didn't fully grasp it, it centers around her being blocked out from Google AdSense accounts.
	Now what that is, is an advertising arm run by Google and YouTube allowing you both to create and pay to promote ads or videos as well as receive ads on your channel.
	Okay?
	Two things here.
	One, I've also experienced the exact scenario that Tulsi Gabbard is describing.
	We've run ads here on YouTube for years.
	Okay, now what kind of ads?
	We've really only run ads where we run our videos as pre-roll ads before other videos, right?
	You know, where you can click skip ad, although people don't skip.
	We just run our videos.
	We've been doing it for a long time.
	I was approached by YouTube to do this.
	We don't run as many ads, of course, as NBCUniversal or Disney, Viacom, Vice, but we do what we can.
	Now, many of the ad campaigns that we've run here on YouTube through Google AdSense were actually engineered by YouTube employees themselves.
	Again, who reached out to me and taught me how to create these ads and encouraged me to spend more money on these YouTube advertising campaigns.
	But at some point, they decided that these campaigns, the ones they initially created, were now a violation of policy and began locking them out.
	Not only that, But even though I was told the exact opposite, I had clearly been blacklisted from promoting any of my videos on the platform here.
	So again, I ran some tests behind the scenes, and I tried to pick the most vanilla milquetoast examples I could find of my videos, and I attempted to promote them as ads on the platform.
	Like this long-form conversation I think is one with Climate Change original Greenpeace member Patrick Moore.
	And then of course all the civil, productive, change-my-mind segments.
	All were declined.
	All were deemed shocking content.
	Again, even though YouTube had helped design campaigns around these exact pieces of content and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising those same videos years before.
	So, I say this because I want you to know I'm well aware of the screw jobs that can occur with AdSense without any answer.
	Ms.
	Gabbard.
	Second point.
	Most importantly, this establishes a record with Tulsi Gabbard of Google YouTube altering the rules for a specific window of time when Tulsi Gabbard was trending or was widely searched due to a bump in the debates.
	You don't get that back!
	So now we enter the most, what I would say is, I would argue the most troubling portion of all this, okay?
	Again, please do tweet it out.
	Use the hashtags Facebook, Instagram, in case this gets removed.
	Is it still up?
	Are we still up?
	Yeah, we're still up now.
	Okay, good.
	Good-ish.
	On Friday, Hillary Clinton Rodham, in case you're thinking of someone else. Hillary
	Rodham Clinton claimed that Tulsi Gabbard, well she claimed that there were people who were Russian
	assets and then it was confirmed that it was Tulsi Gabbard, right? Confirmed that she was talking
	about Tulsi Gabbard, accusing her of being a Russian asset, and Tulsi's response had her trending
	number one on Twitter, I think it was It was last Friday.
	That's when we were looking into this.
	Okay, so she was the number one trend.
	Actually, I think, like, number one through four, because one might have been Tulsi, another might have been Russian Asset, another might have been Gabbard.
	The point is, she was the belle of the ball, with many verified checkmarks, by the way, and pundits running with the story, fighting over whether she was a Russian plant.
	So, during this time, we decided to, again, while Tulsi Gabbard was in the spotlight, run some comparative searches on YouTube.
	When we set our VPN, so I want to be clear, this is the crescendo.
	Share it, pirate this in case it gets removed.
	When we set our VPN to a non-United States country and we searched for Tulsi Gabbard, her channel and the videos from her channel all showed up first.
	Yet again, when we switched our searches to the United States, however, nothing.
	Exclusively in the United States, the country in which she is currently running for president, you would receive no results from Tulsi Gabbard's channel or her videos until scrolling past the first page.
	Here's a video screen recording, just in case people try to say that we've doctored it.
	By the way, these video screen recordings will be available as clips on YouTube should you want to use them for articles.
	So, that Friday, you search, she's trending one on Twitter, all of a sudden, boom, valve is pinched, you can't find her, exclusively in the United States, you can if you're in Germany, you can if you're in Spain.
	United States, however, nothing.
	By Sunday, once the trend of Hillary Clinton's character assassination had subsided, the results for the U.S.
	and other countries were magically switched back to being identical.
	Now, it's worth noting that her channel is right now, as far as I know it, omitted from both sets of results.
	So everyone out there, take some screenshots, do some VPN experiments.
	I assume they're going to be fixing this once this video is out, and I assume that someone there is watching this right now, so they may not necessarily be consistent.
	You don't always have the same result twice.
	Even though, by the way, they're the same, her channel is not as prominent as it was before.
	Let me say this.
	Tulsi Gabbard is not my candidate.
	Like I said, I wouldn't vote for her.
	This is chilling.
	Especially when you consider... Let's think about this for a second.
	Again, we stumbled across this accidentally.
	I don't know if anyone else has proof that there is someone who flips a switch on YouTube to make your channel a part of the Preferred Channels Network, whatever the hell it's called.
	We only found out because of the Vox Adpocalypse.
	And then we only found out because I flippantly mentioned that this reeks of election meddling.
	All of a sudden a phone call and someone says we remedy that scenario.
	That means that if someone can flip that switch, and it's not entirely algorithmic, or it's almost as though the algorithms are determined by a human being initially, it's not iRobot, that means that same person can flip off the switch for someone like Tulsi Gabbard.
	All of this is hair-raisingly scary, and if you're interested in a fair election, whether for the presidency or just for the Democratic candidate for the presidency, this should raise some major red flags.
	The influence that big tech has, and their willingness to manipulate information in the face of what should be a Democratic election, regardless of whether it's happening to someone I support or not, Is terrifying.
	So let me address some arguments, by the way, that I know will be presented.
	And I hope that you are being skeptical of this.
	I encourage you to be, and I encourage you to run your own tests.
	YouTube and Google will inevitably claim one of three things, or several.
	Because this is what we've run into, this is always what they claim publicly.
	One, that it's simply algorithmic.
	It's not.
	Again, this channel is singularly unique in that we're able to prove that it's not because our channel was fixed by someone manually.
	Someone flipped a switch, someone could unflip that switch for Tulsi Gabbard.
	Two.
	YouTube may try to pass this off as an accident, a result of a poor, lower-level employee with bad judgment claiming that this was an oversight and that the individual didn't make the proper corrections and they have since addressed the issue.
	Don't buy that either.
	Why?
	We've been in direct contact with decision-makers at YouTube who are aware of these problems and have been trying to do damage control to fix the problems.
	It would stand to reason that the status of a current presidential candidate who is actively suing YouTube would be under the same kind of close watch from the world's biggest information and technology company, and that she wouldn't be someone pawned off on some patsy for the higher-ups.
	Doesn't pass the sniff test.
	This is another argument they'll use, and this is most important.
	YouTube in the past has consistently argued that their algorithms, policies, that they are the results... Well, they argue that it's a result of algorithms.
	But they do argue, let me be clear here, that the algorithms of policies, the results that you find, are often geographically dependent.
	That's something that we were told.
	It's something that many of you have been told.
	And that's because it's geographically dependent because it's designed to best serve viewing audiences with the most appropriate content for their search.
	I've heard his argument made a whole lot, and I expect it to be made now.
	If that's the case, I would implore YouTube, please, because I know someone there is watching, could you please explain to me, your shareholders, and in all likelihood a congressional hearing, why you believe it most appropriate in serving your audience to block the content of a United States presidential candidate exclusively in the country in which she is running.
	How is that best serving anybody?
	In the same way, how does it serve the audience searching for Stephen Crider Changed My Mind to not show them what it is that they are searching for?
	I'm sure shareholders and people who want to understand how these algorithms and big tech work, they would love to know why it's in their best interest for users to not find the content they signed on for and are actively searching.
	How does allowing Tulsi Gabbard's channel and videos to show up Everywhere around the world, except for the United States, best serve your audience.
	YouTube, you are in the information business.
	And I want to clarify this, when we say big tech, no, it's the information business right now.
	From a business perspective, YouTube, how does it make sense to preclude your users from finding the content they are searching for specifically and passionately?
	The only answer I can come up with In the face of mounting evidence, is that it's not even profit-driven, but to an extent, ideological.
	And finally, to the detractors, who I know will say, well, Tulsi's not a serious candidate.
	In the grand scheme, it doesn't really matter.
	Tulsi's not a serious candidate.
	Okay, you know what?
	I get it.
	Not very high in the polls.
	People just, people say the same thing about us.
	Well, it's just some right-wing, edgy channel.
	Who really cares?
	Well, actually, it's the biggest conservative channel in the history of the world's largest media platform because of you, and we are so grateful.
	I don't say that boastfully.
	I say that in a terrified, from a place of terror, because who knows where we'll be tomorrow.
	But the biggest conservative channel on the platform, they've actively tried to silence it.
	Tulsi, Tulsi Gabbard is not a serious candidate.
	I hear that.
	Well, let me, let me ask you a question.
	Let's assume that's true.
	Why do you think that is?
	We often hear the left talk about big money in politics all the time, right?
	The Koch brothers!
	Oil money!
	And listen, I think it's a problem, but the Koch brothers opposed Donald Trump.
	And money can't save people from the viral news cycle in 2019.
	Donald Trump, like it or not, is the new media president.
	He can affect the globe with his tweets.
	That's why it's an international scandal.
	You can't buy that.
	Bernie Sanders didn't have the money or the power that the Clintons did, and it took everything they had to try and shut him down.
	Why?
	Because of the radical new media landscape.
	Information in 2019 is more valuable in elections than money.
	And right now, I am confident in saying that Tulsi Gabbard is being barred from access to or delivery of necessary information.
	Sure, listen, we don't know whether Tulsi Gabbard can get the votes and be a winning candidate.
	I'll give you that.
	Just like we don't know how large this very channel could grow if there were a level playing field.
	Let me paint a picture for you for people to say, well, she's not a serious candidate.
	Asking you why.
	Let's run this little thought experiment.
	If back in the 60s, well, let's even say early 50s through, sorry, late 50s through early 60s.
	Back in the 60s, JFK was completely banned from appearing on the only three main networks that existed, ABC, NBC, CBS, right?
	And then after a certain amount of time, it was an Indian going, boo!
	If he was banned from all of those networks, do you think he would have been the Democratic candidate?
	If he had never been allowed to appear on those networks, which reached, I think, 28 million homes.
	That was about, yeah, we have the source here, 60% of United States household.
	Do you think that he would have had the same fan base?
	Do you think he would have been a serious candidate on everyone's lips?
	I would argue likely not.
	Well, let's compare that.
	YouTube has 2 billion monthly active users and is used by 73% of United States adults.
	Google has a 90.46% share of the market as it relates to searches conducted online worldwide.
	It is far greater than the influence of every television network combined in the era of JFK or Nixon.
	Make no mistake, this is the most powerful information company on the face of the earth today and likely to have ever existed.
	And they've repeatedly shown an inability and unwillingness to invite, to engage, and sometimes they ultimately just block people from even having a seat at the table.
	We often hear folks say, and this has become a catchphrase, like I said earlier, but in this instance, I think this is accurate.
	It's truly not a left or right issue.
	This is a fundamental issue that relates to the state of our republic.
	And I would hope that everyone, from the Young Turks, to their subsidiaries, to Seth Meyers, to John Oliver, to folks in the Yang Gang, even the Tulsi Gabbard followers themselves, who I know have been asking questions if she's been getting a raw deal.
	Hopefully this helps you.
	I would ask all of you, with whom I have very little in common, To see the gravity of this situation and, in this instance, come together to demand answers and transparency from the world's largest information company as it relates to free and fair elections.
	I will await YouTube's answers with bated breath.
	Sorry it wasn't all that funny because I had to make sure that I got this out and that I didn't say anything that held me legally liable.
	That's why my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richman, is here.
	Are we good, sir?
	Yeah, so far.
	So far.
	And please do, again, keep this going.
	We have some videos right now right on Twitter.
	We had this prepped.
	We did our due diligence.
	And the hashtags are?
	Hashtags are CrowderExposeYouTube.
	And I believe it's YouTube 2020 Election Blacklist.
	YouTube 2020 Election Blacklist and Crowder Exposes YouTube.
	So I want to make sure that you keep that going.
	These screenshots will be available to everyone.
	And to those who were asking, we said, listen, we think we're on to something.
	A lot of people behind the scenes.
	I know half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond had a deal with us.
	Poor guy was pulling.
	Pulling his hair out, but he's got a thick mane.
	Can you get it to us?
	If we get this info to you now, it's going to go public, and someone else is going to try to run with it, and they might not get the story right.
	So, yes, it's been a very stressful few days, but half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman, your thoughts?
	So I think that people don't necessarily, if you kind of sum everything up, you've given them a lot of information in order to be clear and to be detailed.
	And to really boil it down, Tulsi already publicly knows and has been publicly fighting since July when she filed her lawsuit against Google and YouTube to say that they had been screwing with her on the Google ad side.
	And knowing that the ads are the way that in this market, in this current economy, in our current tech world, how we communicate to voters Whether you're on the left or the right, whether you're Republican or you're Democrat, and she already knows about that.
	And that's the same thing that we've had to deal with in terms of our own ads being removed and unable to actually do the kinds of things that every other platform is able to do with no clarity on the violations.
	So what the other parallels we had here and again that's what kind of led to where we are now is being able to see that not only is it ads and ads her ads are ads but it's also search for her and search for us and that's the most incredible part about this is you know we looked at it and we were very skeptical you know to say hey How could this be true?
	The spotlight is on them.
	Why would they continue to do this?
	And so again, there's someone there.
	The kind of back-and-forth action makes it clear that there is a person making the decisions.
	I think your point is very, very key.
	It's actually mentioned in the amended complaint filed by Tulsi Gabbard in her lawsuit against Google, is that algorithms are written by people.
	They are written with an intended result.
	They see the results, and their job is to monitor the results.
	So if anyone's out there thinking, well, you know, with all eyes on them, surely they didn't intend to screw with Tulsi's campaign, to screw with her ability to rise in the polls, to screw with her ability to communicate to people on both sides of the aisle about her candidacy for the Democratic primary ticket.
	One still has to put the blame back on these companies for not taking the action that they could.
	It would be kind of going back to that first case that we dealt with together with Facebook.
	Remember it wasn't you know up at the top they were saying well we had no idea that there was this group of contractors who were supervised by employees that had a written policy that included a blacklist and you happen to be on it and you know but it was an accident right well clearly in the years that that's happened that excuse no longer makes For people who don't know, that was when, was it Engadget or Gizmodo?
	Gizmodo.
	That's how Half-Asian Lawyer Bill Richmond and I initially met, was there was a list of people on Facebook to throttle, to make sure that their, really I think this was a list to make sure that their content wasn't trending.
	And it was like Breitbart, Drudge Report, some conservative organizations, and yours truly, for some reason, going, well, this is really bizarre.
	And I reached out to half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman.
	The thing is, at that point, they didn't argue it at all.
	They just argued that, well, these were some rogue employees who did it, and we've corrected the problem.
	And at that point, no one was really looking for it, right?
	We just stumbled across this.
	It was actually a friend who was a groomsman at my wedding who introduced me to half-Asian Bill.
	And a wonderful friendship blossomed from there.
	That being said, that can't be the case here because this is a current presidential candidate who is already suing the company.
	They wouldn't be able to say, well, we had no idea.
	We passed her off to some low-level employee.
	If that's the case, then you're far too inept to be the single biggest information delivery company in the history of mankind and there needs to be some more oversight.
	Well, and I think the other question there is that when we saw the Facebook situation, remember, there were inquiries from the Senate, from Congress, representatives were reaching out, there was many statements that Facebook had to make to explain and to try and give some information, and they were able to get away with not having to say too much about exactly what had happened at that time, but had to really open the kimono, if you will.
	And here, there's really no other answer that YouTube can give other than to say, We've got to look at all the files and you've got to get a congressional hearing I mean these are the kinds of things where regardless of the validity on the legal aspects of Tulsi's lawsuit I know she's had to switch from different claims and actually just a week ago Google and YouTube filed a lawsuit They filed a motion to dismiss her entire claim now.
	They don't want to provide any information.
	They don't want to provide any data They don't want to provide any explanations even just on that issue so for them being blocked on her being blocked by the way She doesn't know about this Tulsi Gabbard this This is very new information.
	No one, as far as I know, has talked about this or revealed this information.
	While she was trending last week, being accused of being a Russian asset, you search anywhere not in the United States, Tulsi Gabbard's content shows up, search in the United States, ghosted.
	She doesn't know this.
	We'll be reaching out after this.
	And if you just want to draw the parallels there, on the Friday that we
	discovered this, on the Friday that she was trending because of
	Hillary calling her a Russian-backed groomed asset, that was the day
	that YouTube filed its motion to dismiss her claims. So if you're
	asking as a consumer, you know, just like companies may try and use the
	law to be able to skirt and be able to use the current legal system to get away
	from answering questions, what they can't get away from are the customers.
	What they can't get away from are the viewers and the creators who want to know, regardless of political ideology, if I'm not the favored person, am I going to be treated differently?
	It's all very clear.
	There may be a lot of people who enjoy Hulsey Gabbard's frankness, who enjoy her service to this country, but have very differing views on her politically.
	And I think that's most of us on this show.
	But that doesn't mean that we're again in that classic line, we may not agree with what you're saying, but we'll fight for your right to say it.
	And what's clear now is that YouTube is not interested in fighting for your right to say it if you happen to be a disfavored Democratic candidate.
	And I think where we can also all find some common ground, we can all, you know, hold hands and sing Dahu Dorhe around the Christmas tree and agreeing that Tulsi Gabbard is fine.
	She's a good-looking lady.
	Good-looking lady.
	Watch, they'll throw this out due to egregious sexism.
	Because I said she's an attractive woman.
	We're bridging the divide here.
	No, something else that's also really odd to me is Tulsi Gabbard is She's been tarred and feathered so much.
	She's really, I mean, she's pretty far left.
	She's only moderate as it relates to free speech and she was the one who named a cutoff when it came to abortion at 28 weeks.
	That's seven months.
	So I don't necessarily think she's a radical pro-lifer at that point.
	But it is odd.
	Why isn't her stuff showing up?
	Why has the deck been so stacked against her?
	Is it because they want someone so much further to the left than Gabby?
	Or could it be this idea that Hillary Clinton might toss her hat back?
	We have no idea.
	This is entirely conjecture.
	It's just weird to me that she's seen as a Russian asset because of slightly conservative views, really libertarian views, in that she's a non-interventionist and she thinks she shouldn't be able to have an abortion after seven months.
	Is that worth being blocked out?
	It's extreme, Steven.
	It's extreme.
	I don't know.
	Well, that is the craziest part about this is there's so much unanswered and there's only one company that has all of those answers.
	We can see the results, right?
	We can see the physical search results and how they get modified and we can certainly extrapolate from that the impact on not being able to have a voice when you are the most Trending topic on Twitter in a very fast news cycle surrounding a Democratic primary we can see all of that But what we can't see is the motivation or the mistakes that were made and those are the answers that the people of the United States
	Again, the people who don't get to see Tulsi Gabbard or Steven Crowder's show when searching in results, those are the answers that need to be given.
	Right.
	And I want to be clear, too.
	Full disclosure, we have spoken with YouTube in recent times, but those conversations are to be kept confidential, and we at no point discussed this with them, Tulsi Gabbard, or anything like this.
	I just want to be clear.
	Correct.
	We have not discussed this.
	I don't know if I have to say that legally.
	We didn't discuss Tulsi Gabbard with them.
	I don't know.
	You're the lawyer.
	Am I good?
	You're good.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I just don't want to get sued because, you know, I use the wrong pronoun or something like that, and that's a violation of policy.
	That's already happened.
	But I will say this.
	I have not made myself available, but any of the...
	I always am confused whether it's a committee or a hearing when they have these different
	committees.
	So they have committees, they have subcommittees.
	I don't know if every single representative and senator is on a various committee, but
	I believe they are, and they are on maybe five, six, seven, sometimes even 10 or 12.
	And then those committees will have certain power to send subpoenas, to call people down,
	to ask...
	Sometimes they just do it voluntarily, right?
	Okay.
	hey, if you don't wanna show up, right?
	Susan Wojcicki says, hey, I'm just really too busy to answer questions about influencing the Democratic primary.
	That's an answer in and of itself.
	So there's a power there that can be exercised.
	And if there are any aspects in which you want to see the kind of coming together like you saw with Ted Cruz and AOC on some topics, these are the kind of topics because Every side has these questions.
	Well, and I want to be clear, we haven't been available before, but both myself and half-Asian lawyer Bill Richmond will make ourselves available if you need us to.
	Would it be testify?
	Is that what it is at these points?
	It could be.
	It could be.
	It may be under oath.
	It may be otherwise.
	Okay.
	Well, I want to make sure that you guys understand, to anyone who might be watching, again, we've hosted politicians here on this show, senators, congressmen, people who ran for, people who've run for president, who might be running for president, There is no one out there who has had the same kinds of conversations, relationships, or the overall plethora of evidence that we have as it relates to YouTube, because we've had to deal with it on the AdSense side, we've had to deal with it on the organic search side, we've had to deal with it on the demonetization side, and because of this we have been aggregating so much research over the last several decades.
	We want to be clear, this is not us going, oh, it's censorship!
	That's not what we're talking about here.
	We are talking about Dishonesty and misleading business practices.
	As it relates to our case, as it relates to Tulsi Gabbard right now and this new evidence, and we are going to be searching for more.
	We encourage you to search for more and send it all to us.
	It is very disconcerting to see the amount of power that can be exerted over, if you want to call it, just the election.
	But I think this goes far beyond the election.
	It goes to a shifting cultural political landscape, really.
	Let's get rid of the top conservative channels that exist.
	And then, let's get rid of the moderate Democratic candidates.
	I'm not saying this is exactly what's happening, but I am saying that, undeniably, you look at—it is so odd, and there is no answer for why our content would show up in countries not called the United States, and why a United States—I always forget, Tulsa Gabbard, Congresswoman?
	Congresswoman, Senator.
	No, it's not.
	I think she's a congresswoman.
	I get that.
	She's a, yeah, yes, okay, representative.
	Why a United States congresswoman would show up in Chile and not the United States.
	None of the excuses we've heard thus far would work.
	It's algorithmic?
	No, it's not.
	We're the only ones who would have proof that it's not for a lot of these.
	The idea that it was an overstatement, low-level employee?
	No, it's not.
	She's suing and you guys filed a motion to try and dismiss this lawsuit.
	So it's obviously on your radar.
	Then it's the idea that you want to most appropriately serve content to people who are serving.
	Well, how are you most appropriately serving the audience by not showing them the results from a sitting representative right now running for the United States presidency exclusively in the United States?
	None of those work!
	These are the excuses that have been trotted out before.
	My guess is they'll probably say, oh, you know what?
	It was a glitch.
	That's still really bad!
	If you want to say that we faked it, great.
	We welcome that, too.
	I really just want to hear some answers at this point.
	We all want some answers.
	And there's a very small window of opportunity here to get this right.
	That's why I want to be clear.
	We've been talking about this for a long time, our interactions with YouTube, and Our legal issues and run-ins that we've tried to play long ball and be as transparent as possible as be as minimal as possible as as compromising as possible when appropriate but right now if there is something happening tipping the scales of the election and this is so odd we stumbled across it's it's the specific example that you out there thought
	Had been going on.
	Last election cycle it was Bernie.
	You thought that the establishment was colluding against Bernie.
	This go around, Tulsi Gabbard almost boycotted the last debates because she thought they were treating her unfairly.
	And a lot of you echoed that sentiment.
	I can tell you whether people are treating her unfairly, okay that remains to be seen.
	As far as how it relates to the information delivered on the platform, she is absolutely being treated unfairly.
	And I don't want any of these people to be president!
	I want to be crystal clear!
	Some people think because I've said that Tulsi Gabbard is hot that I want—no, I don't want her to be president!
	I don't!
	I'll absolutely pull that lever every day for Trump and twice on Sunday!
	But I want—and this is a big thing too—I want it to be an honest win when President Trump beats whatever candidate it is.
	And I want that national election, that general, to also be honest.
	I don't want Democrats to not be able to get a candidate—say what you want about President Donald Trump.
	He was the candidate people wanted.
	You can't say that he was pushed by the Illuminati or the Koch brothers.
	None of them liked this guy.
	They all thought he was going to burn it down.
	It's the first time you have Republicans who went, never Trump, right?
	There was a huge divide.
	He is the candidate that the people wanted, and the people who voted for him loved him.
	Even though I disagree with Democrats, Liberals, on almost everything in 2019, not back to JFK, but today, I still want you to be able to have the candidate that you have selected through a process that should remain untainted.
	I want it to be an honest win, not a cheat.
	You know, I think one of the questions that we were looking at, and that I know you've been kind of doing some research on, if you can recall the numbers, Yes.
	I think Reg can probably get that to me.
	Reg, I know you're in the other room.
	to this. And I think from just a sheer dollars comparison it was a few thousand dollars of
	ads from Russian assets and actual Russian assets, you know, trying to influence the
	election. I think Reg can probably get that to me. Reg, I know you're in the other room,
	I think it was three thousand something. And so you compare three thousand dollars and
	three thousand dollars of ads for Tulsi Gabbard would be the ads that she would probably run
	in just a few minutes trying to reach the platform of a Democratic candidate for this
	And so when you compare those different numbers and you look at the impact here, There is a incredible question.
	And that's one thing that's interesting.
	In that motion that YouTube filed, they talk about, well, she admits that it was just a few hours.
	Well, just a few hours in a 24-hour news cycle, it can be a lifetime.
	I mean, that can be millions of views.
	That can be millions of messages.
	If it's a few hours after the debate, it's not even close.
	Exactly.
	And comparing the circumstances there and how, oh, conveniently she's back up on Sunday while everyone else is...
	Watching football or a church. Yeah, well, especially actually even right now. We're top 10 trending. I believe
	in the in the United States You can't buy that that's good
	I mean, I guess you can I guess Samsung has but they spend a ton of money and it doesn't last very long and then
	They're then their phones explode. But um The point is this kind of overall publicity, right? It's
	something that people can't necessarily buy I think it was, I'm pretty confident in saying it was $3,500 in ads, Russian Facebook ads.
	How much do you think, let's do this, how much do you think Russia would pay?
	If they could guarantee that a candidate who they saw as the greatest threat, let's just say for an example, I'm not saying Tulsa Gabbard is the greatest threat, no people are going to say plant, just stop.
	Let's remove the Russians.
	Let's say it's the Chinese.
	Sorry, half-Asian Bill.
	If someone wanted to stack the deck of the election, right?
	How much do you think they would be willing to pay to guarantee that the most threatening candidate was not turning up in any organic search algorithms?
	I'm not talking about just shutting Tulsi Gabbard out.
	And us, by the way.
	But Tulsi Gabbard out.
	This is Tulsi's party.
	It's not us.
	We'll come back.
	We have some more info for you eventually on stuff going on with our YouTube.
	But right now, it's about Tulsi.
	She's earned this.
	How much would you think that these people would pay to ensure that, let's say, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, whoever it is, doesn't show up when you search for them?
	It's a transaction, okay?
	Behind closed doors.
	I do not want Donald Trump to show up in search.
	Alright, well, what do you want to pay for that?
	If you guarantee- Do you guarantee that he won't show up if someone search his name in United- What if they search it in Germany?
	I don't give shit about Germany!
	What about in Dagestan?
	I don't give rats ass about Dagestan!
	But if search in United States, can you guarantee me that their channel will not show up for at least one or two page because we have numbers that show people do not search beyond first page?
	And if YouTube said, we guarantee you that Donald Trump, or we guarantee you that Tulsi Gabbard will not show up, I will pay, insert, how many millions that you want here?
	At least eight figures?
	And you add that up, the totality of the election span?
	That's absolutely insane.
	We're not just talking about blocking her out from running ads, which everyone else can do, we're talking about the organic algorithms.
	Tipping the scales against her.
	And the worst part is, you're fighting ghosts!
	You're fighting ghosts and there's no accountability.
	They don't have to answer.
	It's amazing to me that they don't... Can they legally, with Tulsi Gabbard, would they legally be able to dismiss it and just not provide any answers as to why she was blocked out from advertising?
	I mean, there's a judge who's going to look at all the arguments, make the decisions.
	Tulsi's team hasn't even had the opportunity to file the response.
	I mean, the motion was just filed on Friday.
	Again, the day that her search results were blocked.
	in the United States while she was trending number one in the United States.
	But ultimately the core of the arguments are there and frankly any ability to not get the
	answers from the lawsuit is an indictment of our current statutory system that would allow a
	company like YouTube or allow a company like Facebook to be able to say, hey we're just a
	platform. People just send messages, they post what they're going to post, we don't edit those
	contents. We're not a publisher.
	We're not a broadcasting studio subject to other restrictions.
	And what's clear here is that their action that they're taking, separate and apart from the more egregious sin of interfering with the election with a specific candidate, is the issue of whether or not they are on one side or the other of that publisher-platform divide.
	And what everyone continues to ask, and what they continue to get pressed on but don't give clear answers, is which is it?
	Just pick one.
	I almost don't think, I mean this is me, and I'm not a lawyer, but the fact that Google and YouTube host debates themselves seems to me that that would enter the equation.
	That they're no longer just a neutral platform where people tend to go to watch debate streams when it's actually hosted by Google YouTube and people are sending in questions from Google YouTube.
	That's why Tulsi was going to protest the last debate because she was saying she thought she was treated unfairly by Google.
	That's got to open the door to some higher standard.
	I think all of those different factors go into play, because it's a pretty complex analysis to decide, are you on one side of the divide or the other?
	But when you add all of this up together, it creates a scenario that's hard to deny.
	When you're determining what ads are going to be placed, when you're determining what people can say, whether they're advertising a business or not or it's political ads, if you're changing what people can find and how easy it is for them to subscribe or get notifications, if you're making it difficult for people to be able to find you in search results or to find you in suggested feeds, I think by definition, somewhere along there, you cross the line into being an editor.
	And when you've edited the content and you become an editor of content, the whole landscape shifts.
	And that's not even to get into the idea of the paid partnership program and monetization, where YouTube applies different rules as far as, and I would imagine the same applies in running ads, where they say, well, not everyone has a right to post on YouTube, but not everyone has a right to be a partner, to be paid.
	And at that point, it seems like you're venturing well into the realm of publisher because you are determining who can and who can't make money off of YouTube, which is fine.
	I'm fine with.
	But again, there needs to be some sort of transparency there.
	In my opinion, you are the lawyer.
	All right, the hashtags, we're going to go.
	We'll keep you updated.
	Hopefully, we hear something back.
	Hopefully, you hear something back.
	Look for the statements in the public and look for those three arguments.
	that they always make. They don't hold water.
	That it's just an algorithm. It's not.
	There's a person. It was some low-level employee.
	It absolutely couldn't be.
	Or the idea that the algorithms best serve the audience.
	You tell me how you best serve the audience by not serving Americans
	information regarding a current American running for president
	who's also a current United States representative.
	Look for those three arguments and immediately dismiss them and ask for another answer.
	And please run your own searches, not just Tulsi Gabbard, not just Stephen Crider, change my mind, but other presidential candidates, political topics.
	The only way that this gets out, the only way that this gets corrected is, of course, legally.
	And like we said, we will make ourselves available for any hearings or cross-examinations or whatever legal terms Bill knows.
	Yes, what you're about to say.
	I was going to say, for those who are skeptical, and I know this is going to get out further than just our normal kind of right-leaning or conservative groups, this will hit all the different types of groups in America.
	In case you're just not concerned about a conservative or a not liberal enough candidate being restricted on YouTube, and maybe you think that's okay.
	I would ask you to go back and look at the different lawsuits, complaints that were made against YouTube and Google and Facebook for complying with the restriction of LGBT content, of other left-leaning content in countries like Saudi Arabia or China or Russia or other countries like that.
	The power that they have is acknowledged.
	They've acknowledged using the power, and now we have evidence that they're using it to interfere with an election.
	Yeah, and I would say, and I was about to go, and I felt like I was on a roll, but I think that's such a good point, and even though I know it's really easy for a lot of people out there to demonize us because, you know, we have a shirt that says socialism's for figs, and you say we don't really care, no love lost if we're gone from the channel.
	For big tech companies who talk about their philanthropy and talk about being able to affect positive change on a global scale, Right.
	And so it's easy to hate us because you think, well, we make jokes.
	Therefore it must be, if there's a racially charged joke, it must mean that someone is racist.
	Or if we're conservative, it must mean that we're a Nazi, right?
	Think about what this means overall for not just LGBTQ, but people in other countries who are still fighting for their civil rights, who are still fighting for their rights to
	access information freely, if you have the biggest tech monopolies, tripopolies, if
	that's a word, working with governments to enforce their policy or to dictate what
	governments are installed. And I would also ask, what possible altruistic argument could be presented
	here right now?
	It's easy to say, well Stephen shouldn't, the ladder with Crowder, Stephen Crowder shouldn't be on YouTube.
	Okay, fine.
	It's easy to say, I don't know, Dennis Prager shouldn't be on YouTube because he's one of those Nazi rabbis.
	Okay, fine.
	But how do you say, you know what, morally we're justified in making sure that people who are searching for Tulsi Gabbard don't find her in the United States.
	That's the right thing to do.
	I just don't see a moral case, even if we disagree on everything.
	And I don't see a moral case because I don't see it as a moral decision to ever silence voices of dissent simply because you can, even though it's unethical and it's what you claim to not do.
	But I get it.
	That's just me.
	That's my worldview.
	But I don't see how anyone, even from a leftist worldview at this point, could look at this scenario and say, yeah, that's the right thing to do because I don't like her.
	There's nothing good about this here, folks.
	Nothing.
	And I also don't want you to assassinate the mess... Again, I'm not a totally yabbit person.
	She might not even want to come on the show to talk about this because people scare her off.
	And if you're afraid to do the show, you don't have to do the show.
	But I want this info to get out to as many people as possible.
	Please, keep it trending.
	Post it.
	Write articles.
	I know we have a... Is it Crowder Exposes YouTube?
	Is it 2020 Election Blacklist?
	Yep.
	YouTube 2020 Election Blacklist.
	And I encourage you, comment.
	We're going to leave this stream up.
	Anything.
	Any upside that you can see to this happening right now?
	I don't.
	I fail to see it and I try to.
	The reason we do Devil's Advocate on this show and the reason we do Change My Mind is because I firmly believe if you cannot argue your ideological opponent's position, you have no business holding your own.
	I can't.
	I cannot make the case for why any of this is justifiable, and not happening to me, but happening to other people right now, most notably Tulsi Gabbard.
	If someone can make that case, I would love to hear it.
	We'll keep you abreast as it relates to our channel specifically and our content.
	There likely won't be a show tomorrow.
	I think we have Rand Paul on the program live on Thursday.
	8 p.m.
	Eastern.
	Thank you so much.
	I appreciate you bearing with us.
	I'm gonna go back to hopefully just doing comedy because I'm not a newsbreaker.
	It's not my strong suit.
	This fell in my lap and I didn't want it.
	All right.
	We'll see you soon.
	Bye.
	Mhm.
	But again.
	Never.
	All.
	Mm hmm.
	Yeah.
	Mm hmm.
	you you
	We're gonna take it nice and slow.

▲